Many
Occupiers have expressed
a valid concern over the Obama campaign attempting to hijack the Occupy
movement. To avoid this pitfall some Occupiers advocate more radical
methods, ideas and strategies. But sometimes these tactics create new
problems. While swerving safely left of the Democrats' grasp, some
Occupiers
have overreached and exited the orbit of most working people, who would
otherwise naturally gravitate to the Occupy movement. Some Occupiers
dismiss
this new worry, viewing the Occupy movement as an unstoppable social
movement.

This raises the question: is
Occupy a real social movement or one still struggling to be born? The answer to
this question helps determine what strategy the Occupy movement should take,
what demands it should fight for and the level of confrontation of its
actions. If you believe that the Occupy movement is still struggling for a
mass base, as this writer does, then you'll likely agree that Occupy needs to
immediately focus on broadening its base and wage militant struggles for
demands that will bring in the wider working class community.

Such a campaign may not at
first appear as radical as some Occupy actions, and will likely draw
accusations of "reformism" (the Democrats cannot be lumped into the
reformist category, because they are not advocating pro-worker
reforms; they are basically for maintaining the corporate dominated status quo
by rolling back previously won reforms). Some "reformist"
demands might include: a massive public Jobs program, Save Social Security and
Medicare, End the Wars, Tax the Rich and Corporations, Medicare for All,
etc.

Yet
these demands are more
radical than the Democrats can stomach, but make some Occupiers
yawn. The
irony is that only a truly mass movement of working people has the
potential to
achieve the various demands of the Occupy movement. And only a militant
campaign fighting for these immediate demands has the real mass,
revolutionary
potential of organizing working people into a cohesive unit. But an
Occupy movement that ignores these popular demands and fails to unite
the vast majority-- and instead fights for more radical demands that
are now only embraced by a relative few -- has no real revolutionary
potential,
since it ignores the basic needs of the majority of working people.

This is the reformist-revolutionary
paradox. It may seem bizarre to many radicals that previous revolutionary
movements were won on the basis of a few basic demands: the Spanish revolution
in the 1930s mobilized the 99% over land and freedom. The Russian revolution of
1917 aroused virtually the entire population with the demands for bread, peace,
land and rule by the majority.

Countless other revolutionary movements
united around a few, seemingly modest demands. This is because there are few things
that directly effect the majority of working people enough that
they will assemble in the streets to fight. In times of
economic crisis these types of demands have revolutionary potential, since
they are not freely granted by the employers nor their government, but must
be fought for.

Occupy has yet to win over the
majority of the population, or even one-third. There have been several
nationwide polls that support this. And although polls are not a perfect
way to measure public support, they cannot be ignored (as President Bush
insisted on doing). The following conclusion was drawn from a recent USA
Today/ Gallup poll:

"Americans' views about
the Occupy Wall Street movement have changed little since mid-October, with
most Americans taking a neutral stance toward it."

Polls aside, it seems obvious
that most people in America are on the fence as to whether or not to support or
reject Occupy. These people cannot be dismissed as Conservatives or
"apathetic." Many of them will be willing to fight with Occupy in the
streets, as some unions have, if they see Occupy's fight as their
own. Occupy must demonstrate to the 99% that it is serious about waging a
real struggle for working class demands, since tens of millions of working
people are suffering and would rally to a movement they saw as providing real
hope, not merely moments of bravery combined with anti-1% rhetoric.

The USA Today poll also showed
a concerning shift of support against the tactics employed by the Occupy
movement, as did a poll by Public Policy Polling (PPP). A pollster for PPP
concluded:

"I don't think the bad
poll numbers for Occupy Wall Street reflect Americans being unconcerned with
wealth inequality... [but]The controversy over the protests is starting to
drown out the actual message."

This is almost certainly true,
and may soon become critically important. Since the majority of people in
the U.S. are still waiting to see if their interests will be represented by
Occupy, organizing smaller confrontational/radical actions over more radical
demands that do not connect with most working people may only deepen the above
divide. Such concerns may seem naturally repulsive to many Occupiers, who
deeply want "change now" -- an understandable frustration. But
this impatience can be self-destructive if more radical acts separate the
current Occupy activists from the wider community. The media is doing its
best to drive a wedge between the radical occupiers and the wider population of
working people, giving them opportunities to use this wedge tactic should
be avoided.

The police are also driving
this wedge deep, using an excessive police presence combined with excessive
force to frighten average people from attending demonstrations that include
civil disobedience or other confrontational tactics. And although the
police deserve total blame for their tactics, Occupiers must out-flank them
with a political strategy that leans towards organizing massive events, so that
the police's power is muted and the media cannot portray Occupy as a minority
of "extremist" activists playing cat and mouse with the police.

The police and politicians are
basing their level of repression against Occupy on the level of popularity that
the movement has with the wider population; many of the Occupy camps
were torn down only after demonstrations became smaller and anti-Occupy
coverage influenced the still-indecisive majority of people. Occupy must
use the same barometer as the police and politicians for the
opposite purpose: successful actions should be judged by whether or not they
connect with the majority of the population and increasingly draw them into
rallies and actions of massive numbers. By implementing this
approach to organizing it will become unmistakable that working people stand
with Occupy and Occupy with them. Together they are one.

The Occupy movement has
inspired people around the country and world by opening debates about
inequality that were shut before. But in order to grow into a democratic
revolutionary movement, the working majority of the population must join in,
requiring that Occupy broadcast a message based on concrete working-class
demands. Working people instinctively know that their demands can only be
won by a massive movement, that the power of the 1% can only be challenged by
the prolonged mobilization and militant action of the majority of the
99%.

Working people also want
"change now," since they are deeply affected by the jobs, housing and
health care crisis. They are not apathetic, just not convinced that Occupy
is fighting for them; they want to see if this fight is a serious fight or just
a symbolic one.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org)